High Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiffs in Complex Trust Dispute Litigation, Secretariat Expert Testimony Plays a Crucial Role in Quantifying Damages

February 14, 2025

Managing Director Chaitanya Arora provided an expert report and testimony in a complex trust dispute litigation case brought before the High Court of Singapore. Mr. Arora’s testimony was upheld and accepted on all counts.

Mr. Arora was retained by TSMP Law Corporation on behalf of three family members as plaintiffs to provide expert testimony and quantify damages in a case against the plaintiffs’ father.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, in the role of trustee, acted in breach of a testamentary trust created under the Last Will and Testament of their late paternal grandfather. The will outlined the assets for the defendant to hold on trust for the named beneficiaries, the plaintiffs. The trust’s assets included real property as well as hundreds of thousands of shares in several private companies co-founded by the plaintiffs’ grandfather. Mr. Arora assessed damages to the trust and quantified the capital that ought to have been returned to the Trust. Notably, Mr. Arora’s testimony informed the Court’s decision on the difference in value of a founder’s share with special rights, when compared to an ordinary share.

The Honorable Justice Goh Yihan, Judge of the High Court, accepted Mr. Arora’s testimony and valuations of the disputed trust assets over the defendant’s presented expert. Justice Goh found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial damages based on the analysis and calculations provided by Mr. Arora for the various claims.

“The case is interesting from several perspectives,” Mr. Arora said. “The judgment highlights the points of law regarding a trustee’s’ fiduciary duties even when the trustee has absolute discretion. It also underscores the importance of instructions to experts and the need for experts to ‘stick to their lane’, as a significant part of the opposing expert’s testimony was dismissed by Justice Goh for opining on issues that is not within his professed expertise.”

Read the judgment in full here.

Latest Insights

Talk to Our Insightful Experts